Salvador: Since current demand for antique ivory exceeds the supply, many people who are unconcerned about endangered species but would prefer to buy antique ivory are buying new ivory instead. People sharing your concern about endangered species, therefore, should refrain from buying any ivory at all—thereby ensuring that demand for new ivory will drop.
A
there are substances that can serve as satisfactory substitutes for ivory in its current uses
B
decreased demand for antique ivory would cause a decrease in demand for new ivory
C
people should take steps to avert a threat to the continued existence of elephant herds
D
a widespread refusal to buy new ivory will have a substantial effect on the survival of elephants
E
people concerned about endangered species should refuse to buy ivory objects that are less than 75 years old
A
Horses are known to store oxygenated blood in their spleens for use during exertion.
B
Many species of seal can store oxygen directly in their muscle tissue.
C
The oxygen contained in the seals’ lungs and bloodstream alone would be inadequate to support the seals during their dives.
D
The spleen is much larger in the Antarctic seal than in aquatic mammals that do not make long dives.
E
The spleens of Antarctic seals contain greater concentrations of blood vessels than are contained in most of their other organs.
The point of the veterinarian’s response to the horse breeders is most accurately expressed by which one of the following?
The question stem’s language – “point … is most accurately expressed” – tells us this is a Main Conclusion question.
Veterinarian: A disease of purebred racehorses that is caused by a genetic defect prevents afflicted horses from racing and can cause paralysis and death.
The veterinarian starts by telling us about a certain kind of disease in racehorses caused by a genetic defect.
Then we get a cookie cutter structure – other people’s argument.
Some horse breeders conclude that because the disease can have such serious consequences, horses with this defect should not be bred.
The claim that the disease can have such serious consequences is the horse breeder’s premise, which supports their conclusion that horses with the defect shouldn’t be bred.
What do you expect to see right after we get other people’s argument? The author’s disagreement. And that’s exactly what we get:
But they are wrong...
What are the horse breeders wrong about? Their conclusion – that horses with the genetic defect should not be bred. By calling the horse breeders wrong, the author is saying, “It should be OK for horses with the genetic defect to breed.”
Ninety-nine percent of the time on the LSAT, the author’s rejection of other people’s conclusion is going to be the main conclusion of the argument. To confirm that it’s the conclusion here, we just need to keep reading and see the word “because” right after “they are wrong.” Why are the horse breeders wrong?
...because, in most cases, the severity of the disease can be controlled by diet and medication, and the defect also produces horses of extreme beauty that are in great demand in the horse show industry.
Those are reasons offered for why the horse breeders are wrong, which confirms that “The horse breeders are wrong” is the conclusion.
Let’s look for something that best expresses “It should be OK for horses with the genetic defect to breed.”
Answer Choice (A) Racehorses that have the genetic defect need not be prevented from racing.
This might be tempting if you read fast, because everything up until the last word is good. But the conclusion is about whether the horses should be allowed to breed, not whether they should be allowed to race. Nobody in the stimulus brought up whether the horses should be allowed to race.
Correct Answer Choice (B) There should not be an absolute ban on breeding racehorses that have the genetic defect.
This is another way to say that “It should be OK for horses with the genetic defect to breed.”
Some people might be thrown off by the phrase “absolute ban,” since that didn’t appear anywhere in the stimulus. If you’re one of them, keep in mind two things. First, remember that the LSAT isn’t a test of word-matching; you have to focus on meaning. Second, how you deal with ambiguity is one of the things you’re being tested on – can you recognize a reasonable interpretation of a statement, even if it’s not the one you first saw, or one you think is the best?
So, how do these points relate to this answer choice? The horse breeders’ conclusion – that horses with the defect should not be bred – is arguably a call for an absolute ban. I say “arguably” because you could also interpret it as merely a recommendation concerning what’s good or bad to do, without committing the horse breeders to any belief about real world breeding policy. For example, I might believe that people should not drink soda, but that doesn’t automatically mean that I think we should implement a ban on drinking soda. If you eliminated (B) because of “absolute ban,” you were probably thinking about this distinction.
But how would you interpret this statement?: “Foods known to be poisonous should not be served at our school cafeteria.” Are you thinking, “That’s just a recommendation about what should not be done, but it’s not actually advocating for a ban on serving poisonous foods at the cafeteria”?
What about this?: “Convicted sex offenders should not live within 500 meters of a school.” Is that merely a recommendation? – “Hey, convicted sex offender, you shouldn’t be doing that! That’s not a good idea!” Probably not. I think almost everyone would see this as advocating for a ban.
The point of these examples is to show that the horse breeders’ conclusion – “[H]orses with this defect should not be bred” – can be read as advocating for a ban. The LSAT is asking us to recognize that it is one reasonable interpretation, even if you don’t believe it’s the only one.
By the way, even if you’re still convinced that “absolute ban” makes this answer defective, you still have to apply the same level of scrutiny to the other four answers, which have even more glaring defects. For you, (B) might fall short of the ideal answer, but it’s still the right answer compared to the other four.
With that in mind, if we understand the horse breeders to be saying that there should be a ban on breeding of horses with the genetic defect, then (B) fits very well as the author’s conclusion. The author is disagreeing – there shouldn’t be a ban. (B) is the correct answer.
By the way, if you were OK with the word “ban” but got rid of (B) because you thought “absolute” was too extreme, then consider this statement: “There should be a ban on racial discrimination in hiring.” Are you thinking, “Hmm, that didn’t use the word ‘absolute,’ so it’s actually just saying there should be a partial ban on racial discrimination in hiring.” Probably not. A ban, by default, is absolute. Now, it is possible for there to be a partial ban (a ban with some exceptions). But you’d have to add the word “partial” to describe that kind of ban, or else people would think we’re talking about an absolute ban. This is why there’s nothing wrong with (B)’s use of “absolute ban.” The author thinks there shouldn’t be a ban on breeding horses with the genetic defect. That means they think there shouldn’t be an absolute ban. In other words, we should at least sometimes be allowed to breed the horses with the genetic defect.
Answer Choice (C) Racehorses that are severely afflicted with the disease have not been provided with the proper diet.
This might be tempting if you forgot about our task. We’re just trying to identify the main conclusion. So even if you think (C) is supported by the stimulus, that still wouldn’t make it the correct answer. The part of the stimulus that’s about controlling diet in order to reduce the severity of the disease is part of the reasoning – it supports the conclusion that horses with the genetic defect should be allowed to breed.
Answer Choice (D) The best way to produce racehorses of extreme beauty is to breed horses that have the genetic defect.
(D) starts off wrong with “best way.” The stimulus only said that breeding horses with the genetic defect was one way to produce horses of extreme beauty. But it’s not necessarily the best way. Even if the stimulus had said that, this would still be wrong because it’s not the conclusion. The part about extreme beauty was a premise offered to support the conclusion.
Answer Choice (E) There should be no prohibition against breeding racehorses that have any disease that can be controlled by diet and exercise.
This answer might be tempting because the first half sounds like exactly what we want – “There should be no prohibition against breeding racehorses…” But in the second half, it all goes wrong. The author’s conclusion wasn’t referring to “racehorses that have any disease that can be controlled by diet and exercise.” It was specifically referring to racehorses that have the genetic defect described in the first sentence. There shouldn’t be a prohibition on breeding horses with that particular genetic defect.
Another reason to get rid of (E) is that it refers to “diet and exercise”. The stimulus only said that “diet and medication” could help control the severity of the disease; exercise wasn’t mentioned.
Which one of the following is most strongly supported by the information above?
This is a Most Strongly Supported question.
Computers perform actions that are closer to thinking than anything nonhuman animals do.
Think about developments in artificial intelligence – ChatGPT and other AI systems can write poetry, analyze business strategies, diagnose medical conditions, and more. These are examples of computers doing things that are closer to thinking than anything animals do. (I’m just going to drop “nonhuman” when referring to animals. I like the LSAT’s reminder that humans are animals, but for the sake of brevity, humans are humans and animals are animals in this explanation.)
But computers do not have volitional powers, although some nonhuman animals do.
But computers don’t have volitional powers – the ability to make one’s own choices. ChatGPT isn’t making choices when it responds to you – it’s simply doing as it’s programmed to do. Some animals do make choices, however.
Let’s put what we know together:
Computers are closer to thinking than animals are, and they don’t have volitional powers.
Animals are further away from thinking than computers, and some of them do have volitional powers.
This stimulus doesn’t lend itself to a strong prediction before the answers, so let’s just dive in and find the right answer via process of elimination.
Correct Answer Choice (A) Having volitional powers need not involve thinking.
This answer is strongly supported by the example of some animals. We know that some animals have volitional powers. But we also know that no animal engages in thinking. How do we know this? Because animals are further away from thinking than computers. And computers don’t even do thinking. There’s a divide in the world between thinking and not-thinking – both computers and animals are on the not-thinking side. Computers are just “closer to thinking” than animals.
So if some animals have volitional powers, but they don’t do thinking, that means volitional powers don’t need to involve thinking. In other words, it’s possible to have volitional powers without doing thinking.
Answer Choice (B) Things that are not animals do not have volitional powers.
We know that computers don’t have volitional powers. So some things that are not animals do not have volitional powers: computers. But we don’t know whether there’s anything else out there that lacks volitional powers. So we can’t say that “things that are not animals” don’t have volitional powers – we don’t know about the whole set of those things. We only know about computers. Maybe one-celled bacteria have volitional powers? Maybe plants have volitional powers? It sounds weird, I know. But we don’t have anything in the stimulus to suggest that bacteria or plants don’t have volitional power.
This is a tempting answer if you interpret (B) as “Some things that are not animals do not have volitional powers.” But this statement actually should be read with an implicit “all” before it: “All things that are not animals do not have volitional powers.” Unfortunately there isn’t a universal rule about when you should interpret a plural subject like “things” to begin with an implicit “all” – it depends on context. But the vast majority of the time, you should add an implicit “all” before a plural subject rather than an implicit “some.”
“Judges convicted of fraud will be removed from office.” This means all of those judges will be removed.
“Philosophical theories that go against common sense are difficult to understand.” This means all of those kinds of philosophical theories are difficult to understand.
Answer Choice (C) Computers possess none of the attributes of living things.
The correct version of (C) could go something like this: Computers lack some of the attributes of living things. Namely, volitional powers. But we cannot hastily generalize to the conclusion that computers lack all of the attributes of living things. Besides, that’s patently false. Computers are tangible; exist in the world; and are made of atoms. Those are attributes of living things as well.
Answer Choice (D) It is necessary to have volitional powers in order to think.
(D) is an odd answer. Based on the stimulus, we can infer that it is not necessary to have volitional powers in order to perform actions that are close-ish to thinking. That’s computers. No volitional powers but close-ish to thinking. How did that get twisted into: it is necessary to have volitional powers in order to think?
Unclear. But (D) is likely trying to bait you based on what you probably think in real life. “Humans think…and they have volitional powers. So maybe you need volitional powers to think?” This line of reasoning is flawed in several ways. First, the stimulus doesn’t tell us that humans think. Second, it doesn’t tell us that humans have volitional powers. And third, the stimulus doesn’t suggest that anything is necessary for thinking. We happen to know about certain things that don’t think – computers and animals. But we have no idea whether lack of volitional powers have anything to do with why those things don’t think.
Answer Choice (E) Computers will never be able to think as human beings do.
We don’t know what will happen in the future based on this stimulus. In our current world, computers don’t think. But they might be able to think as humans do in the future.